Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,248 Year: 5,505/9,624 Month: 530/323 Week: 27/143 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   If complexity requires design, where did the Deity come from?
Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008

Message 15 of 111 (562536)
05-30-2010 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by dennis780
05-29-2010 10:15 PM

Re: Here goes nothing...
dennis780 writes:
this is true, but only one true God (supposing I am correct in the existance of one).
Why? Why can't there be multiple true gods?
the same is true with evolution, with many different theories, sometimes conflicting, but yet the theory remains.
Not really, no.
The truth is, evidence for any conceptual theory must be present for the rational mind to accept anything as possibly true. So, to show that God is true, rationally, evidence should agree with the biblical account of life and earth.
Well, then you lose, because it doesn't.
There are many evidences, that are discussed in many other threads, but specifically the peak of Mount Sinai being burnt (agreeable with the biblical account of the ten commandments), and the chariot wheels found along the sand bar of the Red Sea (agreeable with the biblical account of Moses).
There aren't any chariot wheels found along the beaches of the red sea, hell, even the coral structures in the red sea (well, not the red sea, actually but the Arabian gulf), have never been verified as being chariot wheels. And even if they were, this still isn't evidence they're from the exodus event. Also, there is of course no possibility that the ten commandments event was written when the top was already black?
Sure. How about the light elements of helium and hydrogen. Since they came from a singularity of nothing.
No they didn't.
But everything has a beginning and an end. To think otherwise is silly at best.
Even god? Or does it then suddenly not apply?
Since my fathers DNA is different from my grandfathers, and gentic code is used for testicular Function, it is only plausible to accept that I have been Alive as long as my fathers genetic code.
Your DNA is different for your fathers as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by dennis780, posted 05-29-2010 10:15 PM dennis780 has not replied

Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008

Message 34 of 111 (565692)
06-19-2010 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by dennis780
06-19-2010 7:58 AM

Re: Here goes nothing...
dennis780 writes:
Some scientists believe that lightning caused the first life forms, others believe in the hot puddle, and some believe that oceanic vents caused it.
In the vast "evidences" of evolution, if you honestly believe that every scientific group maintains a single belief, then you are more blind than my grandmother
Since none of those things have the slightest thing to do with evolution, you still failed to provide what was asked of you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by dennis780, posted 06-19-2010 7:58 AM dennis780 has not replied

Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008

Message 38 of 111 (565804)
06-21-2010 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by dennis780
06-21-2010 7:44 AM

Re: Here goes nothing...
dennis780 writes:
But is a requirement for the latter. But I'll bite anyway. Scientists for years thought it took millions of years for fossil formation. Scientists have found shells of lobsters that are still alive. This creates the enormous question, does it really take millions of years? If not for lobsters, then perhaps other animals as well.
No it isn't. Unless you want to call your god poofing it out of nothing abiogenesis too. I suspect you are referring to a strictly natural explanation though. By the way, got a source for these "shells of lobsters that are still alive"? And why does this mean fossilisation doesn't take a long time? And what does the speed it takes a fossil to form have to do with evolution?
Sloth fossils found in the ocean (Atlantic and Pacific I'm pretty sure) is another good one.
Really? Why?
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, in which it states that everything tends to chaos, not order. Scientists do not deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
And yet those same scientists also don't deny evolution. What a weird thing for them to do, unless, of course, you are wrong. Which you are.
Which is wrong, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or evolution? They cannot both be right.
Yes they can, and are. You just don't understand the second law, as is evident. For one, it only applies to a closed system, which the earth is not.
I'm not sure what else you want me to write. The sun rotates too slowly,
No it doesn't. What does this have to do with evolution anyway.
Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum (there is a thread for this as well).
Also has nothing to do with evlution. And you were wrong in that thread as well, painfully wrong, in fact.
All scientists believe these laws, and these laws violate evolutionary thinking.
And yet these same scientists accept evolution. Weird huh?
Either the laws are wrong, or evolution is.
They are both right. You on the other hand, are wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 7:44 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 8:21 AM Huntard has replied

Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008

Message 41 of 111 (565816)
06-21-2010 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by dennis780
06-21-2010 8:21 AM

Re: Here goes nothing...
dennis780 writes:
I know right? It's like flipping a coin, and getting heads AND tails. Everyone wins.
I already told you, they're not conflicting.
Show me an evidence for any organism adding new information to it's genetic sequence.
Nylon bacteria.
Or better yet, show me any place on earth where fossils are found according to their evolutionary order (invertibrates-fish-vertibrates-reptiles-mammals). Because I can't find any.
Seeing as apparently you didn;t put too much effort in understanding even the second law of thermodynamics (not knowing it only apllies to a closed system for instance) I fail to see why is should go to great lengths to do your homework for you. Also, why would this be a problem for evolution?
This is the wrong thread for this I'm thinkin. I attempted an explaination at the title. We should move to...actually we're pretty random. I dunno.
You coulkd start by providing what was asked of you (evidence for conflicting theories in evolution).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 8:21 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 9:32 PM Huntard has replied

Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008

Message 48 of 111 (565944)
06-22-2010 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by dennis780
06-21-2010 9:32 PM

Re: Here goes nothing...
Ok, here's a post I made some time ago on this forum, about nylon bacteria. I suggest you read it.
Our topic today concerns a bacteria, that through evolution, can now digest nylon.
This is the original gene:
This gene was copied. But no new information was created, since it was a copy. This also means that one copy can mutate freely.
The next thing that happened wasn't just any mutation, but the most dramatic one we know. A frameshift mutation. This will affect every single amino acid from the point of the frameshift onwards. An example of how this works:
Amino acids are formed by a combination of three nucleotides, for example:
|G A A | C G C|
Now, when you insert a nucleotide (which is what this mutation does), it doesn't just change the amino acid it gets inserted to, but every single one after that as well, again for example we insert C into the first position:
|C G A | A C G| C
So much for the example.
There are 427 amino acids in the original gene. Now, creationists like to claim that the ability to digest nylon was already there in the gene, but they're wrong.
The frameshift occurred at the 33rd amino acid, altering over 92% of the gene's information. Seen here in red:
This is NOT a loss of information, however, because this gene is a copy.
The frameshift added a new sequence to the gene, seen here in green:
But not only that, it also made a new start codon at the insertion point. This means that this is an entirely new gene!
This is the entirely new gene:
And now: How much information was created by this?
There are 4 nucleotides total.So, when we take the equation from information theory:
LOG2(4) = 2 bits (the 4 here being the total number of possibilities)
An amino acid is made by three nucleotides, so that is:
3*2 bits = 6 bits for every amino acid
since this mutation generated a sequence of 392 amino acids, we get:
392*6 bits = 2352 bits of completely new information.
The source of all this can be found here
And the video I kinda transcribed here is found here
Now on with the rest:
As well, since this is not considered a natural change, it would be irrelevant, since waste from the plant effected the natural ecosystem.
Thus, it changed the environment, and was natural selection at work.
Good question. Since evolution requires time, in many cases millions of years, we should expect to find gradual changes in fossils based on the dating of the strata. Like a geological book, each layer, if dated correctly, should read according to the story told for that time period. I think it's a perfectly valid point.
Uhm, well, the dated layers do correspond to the "story".
Sure. Since oxygen could not be present in the atomsphere during early life, the ozone layer (O3) would not be protecting the earths surface from harmful radiation.
And yhis has what to do with evolution?
Some evolutionists believe birds came from dinosaurs (a whole new ball of wax), while others do not.
Thos other scientists still think birds evolved. This is not a competing theory of evolution however, this is a competing theory in evolution. The mechanisms the birds evolved with are the same in both cases.
So, no evidence as of yet. I wonder if we'll ever see any.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 9:32 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by dennis780, posted 06-22-2010 7:48 AM Huntard has not replied

Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008

Message 55 of 111 (566136)
06-23-2010 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by IchiBan
06-22-2010 9:59 PM

IchiBan writes:
Evolutionists are always way to full of themselves and they are never doing science. Science is but a thin facade for the evolutionist.
I wonder why all you do on these forums is project what creationists do on people who care about the truth.
You never add anything to the debate, you never say anything of value, and you seem to be coyote's personal board stalker.
In short, gow up, grow a pair, and if you really think you're so right in all this, show it or shut up.
But I think that like a smal chold, you'd rather just insult some people and project other's faults on to them. Typical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by IchiBan, posted 06-22-2010 9:59 PM IchiBan has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024